MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023984564 · doi:10.1007/s00125-014-3460-0

Management of hyperglycaemia in type 2 diabetes, 2015: a patient-centred approach. Update to a Position Statement of the American Diabetes Association and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes

2015· article· en· W2023984564 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Silvio E. Inzucchi, Richard M. Bergenstal, John B. Buse, Michaëla Diamant, Ele Ferrannini, Michael A. Nauck, Anne L. Peters, Απόστολος Τσάπας, Richard C. Wender, David R. Matthews

Bibliographic record

VenueDiabetologia · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiabetes Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLilly DeutschlandServierUniversité de NantesIntarcia TherapeuticsUniwersytet ŁódzkiSchool of Medicine, University of KansasUniversity of IoanninaUniversity of SydneySchool of Medicine, Case Western Reserve UniversityF. Hoffmann-La RocheYale UniversityUniversity of TorontoLee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological UniversityEli Lilly and CompanyKaiser PermanenteMassachusetts General HospitalCase Western Reserve UniversitySanofiEuropean Association for the Study of DiabetesNovo NordiskNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchGlaxoSmithKlineAstraZenecaBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsPosition statementDiabetes mellitusMedicineAssociation (psychology)Human physiologyType 2 diabetesInternal medicineType 1 diabetesStatement (logic)EndocrinologyFamily medicinePsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations690
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueDiabetologiaSame topicDiabetes Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207